lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.4 VM & swap question
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 08:58:35PM +0200, Jakob ?stergaard wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 10:48:36AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > 'lo all. I've got a question about swap and RAM requirements in 2.4. Now,
> > when 2.4.0 was kicked out, the fact that you need swap=2xRAM was mentioned.
> > But what I'm wondering is what exactly are the limits on this. Right now
> > I've got an x86 box w/ 128ram and currently 256swap. When I had 128, I'd get
> > low on ram/swap after some time in X, and doing this seems to 'fix' it, in
> > 2.4.4. However, I've also got 2 PPC boxes, both with 256:256 in 2.4. One
> > of which never has X up, but lots of other activity, and swap usage seems
> > to be about the same as 2.2.x (right now 'free' says i'm ~40MB into swap,
> > 18day+ uptime). The other box is a laptop and has X up when it's awake and
> > that too doesn't seem to have any problem. So what exactly is the real
> > minium swap ammount?
>
> It completely totally and absolutely depends on the kind of workloads you put
> your system under.

Well, yes. :) But 2.4.x is much more swap-happy then 2.2.x was. I haven't
changed my workload that much but the 256 swap became noticiably needed
recently.

> There is no simple answer. swap = 2*phys may be reasonable for some desktop
> uses, I don't know. But there *is* *no* *simple* *answer*.

Yes. The problem is the requirement has seemingly doubled recently.

> With the amount of work that's gone into just *understanding* why the VM
> behaves as it does (even after the VM rewrite that was done exactly in order to
> come up with a VM we could *understand*), it's beyond me how anyone can even
> begin to think that one can define a set of simple and exact rules for minimum
> or "optimal" (whatever that means) values for swap.

Well, it's also been said that the 'need' for 2xswap was fixed by one of the
probably-not-yet-in-linus'-tree VM patches. And that it's 'artificial'

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:55    [W:0.055 / U:3.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site